/m/politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

First of all, Russ Feingold? Really? That must just be name recognition. Maybe Cuomo just has really low name rec? I dunno. I thought he was going to be the nom a year ago, but I am much less sure now.

Now that Chelsea is pregnant, and life for Hillary can get so deeply familial and pleasant, she can have her glory-filled post-presidency now, without actually having to deal with the miseries of the office itself. She is as adored as any ex-president already, she is making a ton of money, and she can expand the real passion of her life, her global mission to promote women’s rights, education, and political participation. The spotlight follows her and always will. If she becomes president at 68 it will be another press onslaught from hell and such a hog-tied two terms, only the festive delights of hip replacement surgery will await her by the time she gets out. Leave the presidency to the people who don't know what she knows all too well: what it’s really like.

It is still hard for me to believe than anyone so ambitious (independent of one's political viewpoint) would abstain from running a plausibly winnable race. As an aside, her husband would have a distinct point of view on how to run for president as one's party's nominee following 8 years in office.

I am not much of a betting person but as an outsider to the talk here, I would think it should be possible to construct odds that would satisfy the people who believe she is unelectable and take into account the fears of future events (esp health) for the people who are confident in Hillary.

I find it extremely implausible that Hillary sits it out. For people who have a legit shot at being president, how many examples do we have of people who passed?

--Mario Cuomo--one of the great mysteries
--Arguably Jeb Bush but he ain't done yet

Anyone else?

People have taken passes on particular campaigns and then found themselves s-o-l like Gephardt taking off 1992 and then never getting another shot.

So I think simplicity is the best policy. Politicians who have a serious chance to become president virtually always run for president. If they wanted to spend time at home with their families, they would have made very different choices long before. Additionally I don't think Hillary is going to let pass the chance to be the first woman to be president.

In terms of the Dem nomination, all that was said in #1300 is generally true but hard to apply to the specifics. Yes she's older than Dem candidates have been, but the question is what that means in the particular context of a 2016 fight. You can't beat something with nothing. To me, O'Malley and Schweitzer are placeholders waiting for a Hillary collapse. Arguably one could play populist but she's quite good--as in 2008--at playing populist herself. Sanders or Feingold would be intriguing protest candidates but highly unlikely to get much traction. A candidate who could separate her from the black vote could have a strong impact on the southern and some of the industrial belt primaries, but who could do that? And also be viable after the Iowa-New Hampshire campaigns? Obviously one has to embrace uncertainty when talking about the future, but it's hard to construct a compelling narrative.

The biggest issue, though, is that Hillary has put behind her the issue that tore apart her 2008 campaign, Iraq. There's no similar fracture in the Democratic Party as Iraq was in 2004 and 2008. That's a huge shift. In 2008 she was running as the representative of the most-unpopular policy among Democratic Party loyalists in their lifetime. In 2016, what is going to play that role? I don't see it. I assume she'll run plausible if not exciting platforms meant to defuse attacks from the left on taxation and health care and everything else.

The general election is far enough out that it's imprudent to comment too specifically. A lot depends on the economy, the behavior of Congress, and the particular Republican nominee.

But the record of parties in the "3rd term" race (where the incumbent president served out the term) is actually pretty good

McCain lost in 2008
Gore in 2000--score that how you want
Bush 1 won in 1988
Nixon lost in 1960
Truman won in 1948

You've got a bad loss, a tight loss in 1960, an essential tie in 2000, and two victories.

When a party changes president mid-way (LBJ and Ford) they have failed to hold a third term. I don't think that tells us much about this situation, barring a President Biden scenario.

I would rate this as:
90 % she runs (9% chance of health scare, 1% chance of a tragedy and then Pres. Biden clears the field)
80% chance she wins the nomination
70% chance she wins the White House--I am skeptical Republicans will run a candidate like Jeb who could play to the middle

That's 50% almost on the nose.

Ed to add: It is fair to ding Truman in 1948 since he was the sitting president, which would change the results of "third term" elections by narrowing them to one ass-kicking (McCain), one tight loss (Nixon), one tie (Gore), and one easy victory (Bush 1). Not overwhelming but still not that bad.

Having said that, I can see the point about why she won't run. Old, tire, sick, plus still being able to do a lot under a lot less pressure, she could find that at that stage of her life so appealing as to be undeniable. OTOH, although running and then being president is a killer, it doesn't seem to be forbidding. Most everyone who has any kind of an outside shot runs. And it is what she has been geared for since here husband was elected.

If you frequent progressive blogs and websites, you know that Feingold has been quite popular for some time. He was by far the top choice of, for example, Daily Kos readers in both 2004 and 2008. He was consistently polling in the high 60s during the pre-primary period. He was considered a solid liberal who could be relied on to speak truth to power while having the credibility and leadership skills that, say, a Kucinich lacked.

However, progressive favor towards him took a huge hit in his last re-election campaign, which saw him cozy up to the NRA. I'd say the 19% he got in the posted poll is quite low for him, and a sign of how far his stock has fallen among progressives.

Cuomo's problem is the same one that lots of pols in both parties have - he operates as a relative moderate, which is bad news in the primaries. He has openly battled progressive NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio on tax hikes for the wealthy, which - whatever one thinks of the concept - seems to me suicide in a national D primary. In fact, he's leery of any tax hikes at all.

Cuomo's problem is the same one that lots of pols in both parties have - he operates as a relative moderate, which is bad news in the primaries. He has openly battled progressive NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio on tax hikes for the wealthy, which - whatever one thinks of the concept - seems to me suicide in a national D primary. In fact, he's leery of any tax hikes at all.

He is also amazingly unlikable. Maybe he's a good guy in private, though I've heard otherwise, but in public he has the most Nixonian personality of any presidential candidate I've seen. He's angry, often inexplicably, and he's often gloomy. Americans tend to go for optimism, even of the foolish kind.

I think Cuomo could triangulate his way through a primary if he had to, as he's quite socially liberal and no doubt would find a way to defuse the inequality. But his problem is that you don't have to outflank him. He's so unlikable that you can run as a happier version of Cuomo and knock him out.

The argument was whether Hillary was such a strong candidate and her potential opposition for the nomination and general election was so weak that right now she was an even money bet to be elected President. Sugar Bear said No, and Andy said he'd take the bet, but then tried to change the terms. Simple as that.

Obviously, no one except HRC and a few people around her know what is in her head about this, but:

1. Yes, she is old, but so were McCain and Reagan. Even Romney was 65 on Election Day, and people are living longer all the time. I don't think the fact that those guys were all Repubs matters that much; HRC is a special case. I think that argument would work more against Biden.
2. She has a chance to make history: First Woman President. Sure, she would have preferred to do it in 2008 and have Obama wait, but the opportunity is still out there.
3. Hunter S. Thompson, in his book on the '72 campaign, wrote about how to a big-time American pol, the US Presidency is a phenomenal rush, the ultimate ego trip, etc. I think people who are focusing on the stress, grind, etc. probably aren't wired the way big-time pols are, and also miss the job's endless perks, plusses, props, etc.

So, I agree with GregD in that I think most big-time pols who have a real shot at it will take that shot, and I think when it comes down to it, HRC will as well.

I see the usual whiners are trying to pre-empt any criticism of Hillary Clinton over the State Department's opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization on her watch. Sorry, it's a legitimate issue. One can argue about how effective such designations are, but hard to argue that Boko Haram didn't make the cut long ago.

So why didn't she try harder for VP? The best shot to be POTUS is to run as former VP. Hil knows that.

I don't think this applies to her. Again, she is not a typical candidate. She has been a household name for over 20 years, lived and worked in the WH for 8, has been a Senator from New York, and is tied to powerful political organizations/donors etc. already. And,of course, she is a woman.

None of this means that she will win, of course. I do think that she will get the nom if she wants it.

Hillary will be quite old for a presidential cycle. She will be 69 at the time of the election. That's extremely old for a Democrat, or a woman. It's a relatively grueling process, and for what? To pick another series of endless fights with Republicans? To have the enviro/populist left ##### about how she's the same as a R? I think at some point in time, Hillary will have to ask herself, why do I want to become president? She has no legislative agenda, no issues that she owns any more.

Agree with all #1300, but this especially.
I would like to hear from Democrat voters: why would they want HRC to become President? What is the pro-HRC argument outside (1) gender HISTORY, in that the US joins dozens of other countries that have appointed or elected a female head of state; (2) "It's her turn"; or (3) [whoever the Rs run] is so SCARY on [whatever issue]?

Or, another angle: there are issues Dems have pretty reliably stated their "disappointment" (or worse) about BHO's administration*: civil liberties; the environment; state secrecy; the ongoing War on (Some) Drugs; claiming increasing "war powers" despite no declaration of war; drone warfare; indefinite detention; etc., etc. Do Dems think HRC will be an improvement in any of these areas, and if so, why?

*"disappointment," so far, doesn't seem to mean much besides finger-wagging. I don't know why BHO would do anything different if Dems are "disappointed" but still provide money/support/votes.

This is only mildly a propos of anything, but it's too choice not to share. It's an e-mail I just got from my dear pool playing buddy, explaining why he's basically seceding from the world. "Petey" was a fellow pool player and one of my closest friends, who passed away in December.

No comment really necessary, since it's pretty much both self-explanatory and self-revealing. And even though he's totally as wacko as this message might indicate, he's still a standup dude in all other respects. I'm going to miss seeing him around.

[Me to him, earlier today]
The Petey memorial meetup has been postponed to---mark this down---Saturday the 24th, two weeks from yesterday, beginning at 3:00. Jen's going to get in touch with Jennie M (Earthquake's girlfriend) to try to get the word out, and also with Mikey, since he's got the Planet Pool contact list.

[His unedited reply, just received a few minutes ago]

I have made a life change, for the betterment of my life. Several of the effects of that, are I won't be attending Petey's memorial. And this decision, includes stopping playing pool. I simply find that there are those in this country that seek to destroy it and I have decided to stop associating with those people. I know this is laughable to you ( the grossly misinformed ) ( if you watched the utube I suggested you watch you would really get, and understand the point ) but I am sure you didn't because you don't want to hear it. I will be just hangin with my friends that share the same values, of honesty, integrity and morality. The final straw for me was that today Boehner just decided not to throw Lois Lerner in jail, and regarding " it's in Eric Holders hands " to prosecute her for her crimes, dream on, he himself is being held in contempt for Fast and furious. It is no longer healthy for me to hang with low information citizens, that are so accustomed to being lied to that they have their heads in the sand, and the media, or shall I say your media, ( again if you see the Trey Gowdy you tube you would reall get the point ) owns them. If you can lie to congress and the senate and the courts, with impunity whats the point of having them? All the liberals and the media have said that ALL the questions about Benghazi have been answered, yet for the third time the you tube video will answer that question for you in spades. You will still believe the liars that represent you, regardless. This country is headed down the path of self destruction, I don't want to join that stupidity. If you think this is an isolated position, look around you it is everywhere, but unfortunately for you , you simply don't know it.
Petey once said he loved Barney Frank, this is the same criminal just 24 hours before the collapse of fannie and freddie, and ruined our economy, not to mention all the investors that got wiped out. Love would surely not be the word I would use! What a pitifully misguided individual.

When I can get to Florida around all those rednecks then i will pick up pool again, at least I'll be surrounded by people that actually know the truth. If I'm lucky I will reside in the Bahamas, hope it won't be much longer!

good luck

if you ever get stuck on the road I will come get you I certainly owe you that.

To supplement McCoy's point, I think of all elections as compromises. I NEVER get the President I actually want (assuming there is such a person). What I get is the most electable of the available candidates. The Republican Party for the last 50 years has put forward candidates that no sensible person should support. Hilary is better than any Republican; she gets my vote because that might at least stop Republicans from wrecking the country further.

Agree with all #1300, but this especially.
I would like to hear from Democrat voters: why would they want HRC to become President? What is the pro-HRC argument outside (1) gender HISTORY, in that the US joins dozens of other countries that have appointed or elected a female head of state; (2) "It's her turn"; or (3) [whoever the Rs run] is so SCARY on [whatever issue]?

It's not complicated at all. When you're faced with a party that more or less rejects the 21st century, and beyond the family and neighborhood level wants to have us fighting like crabs in a barrel while making scapegoats out of the poor and marginalized among us, you want to have the strongest possible candidate to keep that party out of the White House. And Hillary fills that bill far more than any other Democrat. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and though in an ideal world I'd rather have Elizabeth Warren or some other alternative with fewer ties to corporate America, we're not living in any ideal world.

If we're talking about electability, Cuomo is too abrasive IMO and too NEW YORK NEW YORK NEW YORK to have much national traction. Far more than his father.

That's the understatement of the year. He's about as likeable as Ted Cruz and would be the Dem's worst possible candidate in a general election. His idea of a Sister Souljah moment is having it out with Bill De Blasio.

There are many people who probably really want HRC to become president because they have liked her for a long time, think she is really smart, and supported her in 2008. I think mostly that the kinds of guys (and being guys is a part of it for some, probably) that hang out here specifically at BTF and vote Dem are not huge HRC fans per se.

And, the three reasons given in the amusingly biased and loaded harangue in 1323 are all legit reasons to some people to vote for her. The fact that other countries have had women as Heads of State doesn't mean that it won't be a big deal to many Americans when we have one here.

Speaking for myself, I vote Dem (and will vote for HRC if she is the nom) because Dem policies/sensibilities are far closer to my worldview than GOP policies/sensibilities are. That doesn't mean that I think all Dem pols are awesome or that I agree with all Dem policies. A lot of Obama's decisions in foreign policy have been things that I do not agree with, but I am not that surprised that he has gone the way he has, for a variety of reasons.

Hilary is better than any Republican; she gets my vote because that might at least stop Republicans from wrecking the country further.

When you're faced with a party that more or less rejects the 21st century, and beyond the family and neighborhood level wants to have us fighting like crabs in a barrel while making scapegoats out of the poor and marginalized among us, you want to have the strongest possible candidate to keep that party out of the White House. And Hillary fills that bill far more than any other Democrat.

So, pretty much #3 ("at least she's not a Republican").
It's only May 2014; shouldn't the Dems at least try to come up with somebody who seems good (as opposed to not-terrible) in the next 2.5 years?

EDIT: or, again putting it another way - how "disappointing" would a Dem candidate have to be, before Dem voters start demanding (real) change, or take their votes/$/support elsewhere?

Although I think Hillary might be vulnerable to a "new blood" Gary Hart-type insurgent candidate, there seems to be a real shortage of Democrats willing to take the plunge, and the one most interested in doing so, Martin O'Malley, just isn't up to it, IMHO. The aura of electability is Clinton's strongest advantage, especially given the lack of the same in her potential rivals, and it could take her quite far, but if she loses it, her candidacy could go downhill fast.

It's only May 2014; shouldn't the Dems at least try to come up with somebody who seems good (as opposed to not-terrible) in the next 2.5 years?

Well, Dems have a history of getting noms from out of nowhere so I'm not really worried about that but at the end of the day why would the party be busy trying to undermine HRC? As of right now she is the most electable candidate for the 2016 election in the entire country. The party is going to want the field to be cleared pretty quickly or have something like Obama's fundraising juggernaut battle it out with HRC. What they don't want is what happened in 2012 for the Republicans where you had a giant field with no clear leader and everyone angling for a piece of the pie. It isn't in the Democrats best interests to create/find another strong candidate.

However, progressive favor towards him took a huge hit in his last re-election campaign, which saw him cozy up to the NRA.

As a Wisconsinite, I think the general idea was that Feingold was expected to win, but Ron Johnson rode the national wave of business/tea party support to defeat him. Feingold's position on gun rights fits rather well with his strong civil liberties stance (hence the vote against the Patriot Act). He even signed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case over Chicago's gun law, asking that it be overturned. (Source.)

He's current a special State Department Envoy to Africa, and the local rumor is that he intends to challenge Johnson for his old seat, come 2016.

The Republican Party for the last 50 years has put forward candidates that no sensible person should support.

Over the last 50 years, the United States has had a Republican President for 28 years, a majority of that time span. Some of those nominees won by large margins, some won tight races, and some lost. The real extremism is insisting that "no sensible person" could support a party that about half the country does support on a fairly regular basis.

Well as others have mentioned I never get my favorite candidate. You don't get to vote for candidates ala cart. You only get to order off the menu, and it is family style, so if your family wants fish, fish is what you get.

That said what does she have going for her?

She is very smart and knowledgeable. She started to show herself as a solid campaigner towards the end of the 2008 primary I thought. She, like her husband, gets the working class Dem vibe on her side. She has solid mainstream Democratic positions and values, and seems to be a bit to the left of her husband, and honestly roughly the same spot as Obama. She also has the First Woman President thing going for her.

Why wouldn't your average Team Blue voter want to vote for that? What quality should a candidate have? I mean seriously, unlike what some thought about Obama (I never did), you can't expect your politicians to walk on water and fix everything. You just want them to have the right positions and govern responsibly, and I think she can do both and do her party proud.

And regarding the mystery guest Democratic candidate, it is getting late for someone to show up. If warren wanted it, she would be the obvious choice, but from what I hear she had to practically be forced to run for Senate. Besides first term Senator, running and winning the Presidency, beating HRC in a primary, don't be stupid ;)

I believe that we're up to something like 5 VA facilities that have been found to be manipulating waiting lists for appointments so that delays wouldn't affect employee & management bonuses. Cheyenne, Wyoming is the latest:

A Veterans Affairs employee at the VA Medical Center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, has been placed on administrative leave after CBS News obtained an email showing an employee directing his staff on how to game the appointments system to make it appear as though veterans were being seen within the VA's 14-day directive.
. . .
The employee further instructs staff on how to "get off the bad boys list" by "cancelling the visit (by clinic) and then rescheduling it with a desired date within that 14 day window."
. . .
CBS News has learned that the VA's Office of the Medical Inspector had already investigated and substantiated claims of improper scheduling practices at the Cheyenne VAMC, sending a report to the Office of Special Counsel on December 23, 2013. It is unclear why it took five months, and an inquiry by CBS News, for the VA to take action against an employee there and order an Inspector General's investigation.

The Republican Party for the last 50 years has put forward candidates that no sensible person should support.

Come now. Ford, Reagan '80, Bush '88 and '92, and Dole were all sensible candidates, even if you opposed them or their proposed policies. Bush II's grotesque flaws were not apparent in 2000; it was a low-stress election until the ballots went sideways. Nixon was already a shifty paranoid in 1968, yeah, but that was part of his political appeal at the time.

BTW, the British bookies have Hillary's odds of winning the 2016 Presidential Election at 11/8 - perhaps providing another reason why Andy isn't interested in an even money bet.

I'll ask you if you want that even money bet if and when Hillary declares her candidacy. I'm sure you'll take it without a blink.

And BTW those same bookies are quoting the GOP hopefuls at anywhere from 10/1 (Christie and Rubio) to 33/1 (Cruz). At 18/1, Rand Paul is in a dead heat with Elizabeth Warren, although that's still a bit better than the 300/1 for Chelsea Clinton and the 750/1 for Alec Baldwin. They don't quote any odds for either Woody Allen or Mia Farrow.

Add Nixon, who would not get through a Democratic primary now because he would be too far to the left.

Even in 2000, Bush ran as a plausible, sensible candidate. And in fact, had he had the stones to tell Cheney to #### off when Cheney torpedoed the VP search, Bush might have ended up having a dull but not-disastrous presidency. Without Cheney as VP trying to shut out alternative voices, it is plausible Bush listens to people like Powell and Rice--not exactly socialists!--and saves us all a lot of time, money, lives, and wasted opportunities.

By 2004, it was Hunter S Thompson look in the mirror time. A US that voted for him then got what it deserved, and boy did it get it in spades.

Eh, it's possible to see the candidates as being more moderate than they actually governed (or would have governed, in the case of those who lost). That's definitely the case with Ford, for whom I voted. But in terms of actual governing by the victorious candidates, all of them did very serious harm to the US and it's actually hard to come up with positive achievements. Nixon may have more positive achievements than all his R successors combined, but that's mostly because the Dems in Congress pushed him on domestic issues and he really just cared about foreign policy. I think it's a mistake to think that Nixon would have enacted, e.g., the EPA if left to his own.

Add Nixon, who would not get through a Democratic primary now because he would be too far to the left.

Do you mean the Nixon who said that FDR and Truman presided over "20 years of treason", the Nixon who wanted to back the French at Dienbienphu, the Nixon who nominated Harold Carswell (unsucessfully) and William Rehnquist (successfully) to the Supreme Court, or just the lovable Nixon who tried to wiretap the DNC and created an enemies list made up of about half the Washington reporters in the country?

No, the Nixon who pushed the Fair Labor Standards Act that raised wages, the Nixon who beyond signing congressional legislation touted wind and solar as the future of energy and used executive power to try to nudge in that direction, the Nixon who blocked Reagan's effort to get the VP when Spiro Agnew resigned on the grounds that he considered Reagan a troglodyte, the Nixon who proposed universal health care, the Nixon who supported strong gun control, the Nixon who used executive orders for affirmative action...

I am not a Paulite, and I generally think approving a president's nominees is the best, indeed often only, thing to do, but this Rand Paul op/ed on memos permitting drone strikes on US citizens is a totally legitimate question that should be getting more airtime. This isn't a gotcha to turn a tragedy into a scandal; this is a serious question about a deliberate, highly enacted policy, but of course it will get no airtime from either party.

Didn't pretty much everybody think he was an empty suit with a famous name? The conservatives liked him because he wasn't McCain and they all just pretty much assumed that Reagan's old cronies were going to run things and the Democrats hated for basically the same reason.

I see the usual whiners are trying to pre-empt any criticism of Hillary Clinton over the State Department's opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization on her watch. Sorry, it's a legitimate issue. One can argue about how effective such designations are, but hard to argue that Boko Haram didn't make the cut long ago.

There's no room for shame in politics, so I think it's fruitless to scold people for trying to twist a tragedy in this way, but there is room for strategic stupidity. And no party will win an election on a platform that naming organization leaders but not the organization as terrorists is appeasement.

No, the Nixon who pushed the Fair Labor Standards Act that raised wages

The only significant amendment to the FLSA of 1938 that was passed during Nixon's years came in 1974, and it's doubtful that the Democrats had to be "pushed" into passing it.

the Nixon who beyond signing congressional legislation touted wind and solar as the future of energy and used executive power to try to nudge in that direction

I'll grant his foresight on that, but how would that make him "to the left" of the current Democratic Party, not to mention unable to survive the Democratic primary?

the Nixon who blocked Reagan's effort to get the VP when Spiro Agnew resigned on the grounds that he considered Reagan a troglodyte,

Would this have been the same Nixon who twice chose Agnew as his running mate and sicced him on his enemies? The Agnew whose rhetoric was scarcely distinguishable in vehemence and incoherence from Sarah Palin's?

the Nixon who proposed universal health care,

On a far more limited basis than some members of his own party. But what he proposed would have made him persona non grata among the Republicans, not among the Democrats. He would've gotten it with both barrels from the Tea Party.

the Nixon who supported strong gun control,

You mean in private. The most he did was call for a ban on Saturday night specials, in the immediate aftermath of the Wallace shooting, but he never even sent up a bill to Congress. It wasn't really his fault that even then the NRA had a veto power over any serious attempt at gun control, but it's not as if he ever did any more than woof about it withing the sanctuary of his office.

the Nixon who used executive orders for affirmative action...

That he did, but how was that "to the left" of the Democrats, at a time when racial discrimination in the construction trades was rampant?

Nixon had a few good programs, but the vast majority of them were pretty much unavoidable, given the Democratic majorities. And he helped poison the political atmosphere of Washington before he even entered the halls of Congress in 1947. His reputation was richly deserved, in spite of his few moments of sanity.

And BTW this "liberal" Nixon----Would that be the same Nixon who pursued the Southern Strategy with all cylinders running?

Re: 1323, I supported Obama I. 2008 specifically because I didn't want another DLC term. He disappointed there. But it's pointless to pretend "the GOP is worse" isn't a valid reason in a two party system. One burger has a film of #### where the cheese should be. The othe has a slice of cheese on top of a pattie made entirely of ####.

I am not a Paulite, and I generally think approving a president's nominees is the best, indeed often only, thing to do, but this Rand Paul op/ed on memos permitting drone strikes on US citizens is a totally legitimate question that should be getting more airtime. This isn't a gotcha to turn a tragedy into a scandal; this is a serious question about a deliberate, highly enacted policy, but of course it will get no airtime from either party.

First: President Obama should state the justification for his policy on the use of drones. He owes the American people that. Although, in contemporary warring, there often isn't a battlefield per se. Nevertheless, I would say, as a matter of first impression, that if the government is justified in shooting a citizen making war against this country, it is justified in droning that person. Moreover, we don't have to actually wait for him to start firing either. He could give himself up, you know.

Second, an opinion by a legal adviser is not necessarily indicative of that adviser's ultimate personal belief. I think this was hashed out before, famously in the Rehnquist nominating hearings. Lawyers often give Devil's Advocate or slanted type of opinions at the request of a superior or a client.. This especially applies to lawyers in the government, where that superior might want to know what's the best legal face that can be put on a proposed policy he wants to use to justify a certain action. This is hardly out of the ordinary, much less monstrously inappropriate. Hey, surgeons get bloody; soldiers get shot out; ditch diggers get dirty. This is what lawyers do: they are guns for hire in the legal arena. Law schools take pride in saying that they don't teach law so much as they make lawyers. And after that happens, often, professionally at least, lawyers don't know what's their position on an issue unless you first tell them which side they are on. Until they are first given a position to advocate.

And (drum roll) Nixon nationalized state welfare programs for the aged and the disabled. He is responsible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Moreover, Social Security was expanded under Nixon. Welfare type benefits (state and federal) were deemed to be rights, not mere privileges. That meant that applicants and beneficiaries had certain rights that could not be waived except with due process. He generally consolidated the Great Society gains.

I realize that, but none of your examples actually demonstrate the point, and I've listed numerous cases of where he would've been right in step with today's Republicans.

Well on affirmative action he's to the left of today's Democratic Party, which has mostly gone along with the idea of shifting to class. This is a clear one, and I think most Democrats--including the president--are to the center of the policy Nixon implemented

Nixon called for an income floor for every family with children in his proposal for FAP. Some Democrats support this, but this is hardly a mainstream position in the Democratic Party. I don't think you could get anywhere in a Democratic presidential primary calling for an expansion of welfare with a guaranteed income. (I recognize Nixon's rhetoric against welfare and his efforts to reform welfare for adults.)

Nixon proposed the Clean Air Act. Most Democrats now support it (not all!) so on one level he'd be a mainstream Democrat. On another it takes a different level of emphasis to propose a bill than to support its continuation. Certainly he became--to many people's surprise--more committed to the environment than any president since. I don't think a president could come through the Dem primary with that strong an environmental record, though I could be wrong.

In the end, this is an unresolvable and irrelevant argument since placing context is inevitably subjective.

To the question that raised it--was Nixon an anti-modernist like the recent crop of Republican nominees--though I think the answer is no.

I would have voted for Humphrey, but I don't think Nixon or Ford or Bush 1 or even in 2000 Bush 2 were out of the norm of American politics.

That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.

Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but was traveling with him.

If the president had qualms about this momentous step, aides said he did not share them. Mr. Obama focused instead on the weight of the evidence showing that the cleric had joined the enemy and was plotting more terrorist attacks.

“This is an easy one,” Mr. Daley recalled him saying, though the president warned that in future cases, the evidence might well not be so clear.

In the wake of Mr. Awlaki’s death, some administration officials, including the attorney general, argued that the Justice Department’s legal memo should be made public. In 2009, after all, Mr. Obama had released Bush administration legal opinions on interrogation over the vociferous objections of six former C.I.A. directors.

This time, contemplating his own secrets, he chose to keep the Awlaki opinion secret.

“Once it’s your pop stand, you look at things a little differently,” said Mr. Rizzo, the C.I.A.’s former general counsel.

Nixon was, as an executive, someone who generally wanted things to get things done. Since he had a democratic Congress, this meant going along with it, while maybe trying to modify a proposed piece of legislation. The argument, as I understand it, is whether Nixon would be too liberal for the present Republican or Democratic party, not whether he was a liberal in the context of his times. If you want to make that argument, you should consider the nature of his input: did he try to force changes, sway opinions and support. You might look at his vetoes (and the vetoes overridden). But nationalizing state welfare payments is classic FDR/LBJ liberalism, I think. And that was his baby.

Presidents (and Congress) have often made the argument that since they, too, have a duty and an obligation to administer law without violating the Constitution. This necessarily means they have to interpret the constitutional implications of an executive. And, no, they can't ask the Supreme Court for advice. Not only that, but because of separation of powers, there is an argument to be made (and presidents have made it) that the Supreme Court and Congress can't tell the President how to administer his duties.

Nevertheless, I would say, as a matter of first impression, that if the government is justified in shooting a citizen making war against this country, it is justified in droning that person. Moreover, we don't have to actually wait for him to start firing either. He could give himself up, you know.

If the executive's justification for droning Americans is that the executive's "internal deliberations" constitute "due process," how is it relevant that the citizen is "making war"? If there is time for deliberations, where is the imminent threat? When did due process become a requirement of the commander in chief when waging war?

BTW, the British bookies have Hillary's odds of winning the 2016 Presidential Election at 11/8 - perhaps providing another reason why Andy isn't interested in an even money bet.

I'll ask you if you want that even money bet if and when Hillary declares her candidacy. I'm sure you'll take it without a blink.

If Andy wants a straight up even money bet on whether Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 Presidential election, Sugar Bear offered him one. My position is that his refusal to take the bet is evidence that Andy doesn't actually believe Hillary is an even money bet. That the British bookies have Hillary at less than even money suggests Andy's refusal might be prudent, but for some reason, Andy doesn't want to admit that, so he keeps talking about on what different conditions he'll make a similar bet. I don't know whether Andy thinks Hillary might have health issues, might make a major gaffe that would torpedo her candidacy, or might kill Bill after catching him "in the act", but his posts clearly indicate that he doesn't now think Hillary is even money to win in 2016. Period. Full stop.

Morty makes good points about Nixon. Nixon was far to the right, but he also liked to wield power, and government can't do that without taxing and spending and executive-ordering and regulating. By contrast Reagan was delighted to relinquish power as long as it ended up in the possession of private wealth.

I see the usual whiners are trying to pre-empt any criticism of Hillary Clinton over the State Department's opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization on her watch. Sorry, it's a legitimate issue. One can argue about how effective such designations are, but hard to argue that Boko Haram didn't make the cut long ago.

Interesting. So designating Bobo Haram leaders as terrorists is the new definition of appeasement?

Who said anything about appeasement? The refusal to designate Boko Haram goes to Clinton's leadership and judgment. Why shouldn't she have to defend that decision?

If Andy wants a straight up even money bet on whether Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 Presidential election, Sugar Bear offered him one. My position is that his refusal to take the bet is evidence that Andy doesn't actually believe Hillary is an even money bet. That the British bookies have Hillary at less than even money suggests Andy's refusal might be prudent, but for some reason, Andy doesn't want to admit that, so he keeps talking about on what different conditions he'll make a similar bet. I don't know whether Andy thinks Hillary might have health issues, might make a major gaffe that would torpedo her candidacy, or might kill Bill after catching him "in the act", but his posts clearly indicate that he doesn't now think Hillary is even money to win in 2016. Period. Full stop.

Hillary will be 69 in 2016 and everyone in Washington has heard rumors about her health issues, especially after that concussion and blood clot at the end of 2012. That's not a spin; that's a fact, unless you think she plotted it all in advance as a hedge against Benghazi or something.

And that's the ONLY reason I'm not taking her against the field right now. Presumably if she feels she's well enough to run, she will, because polls certainly aren't an issue, not with her double digit or near double digit leads against the Republican clown show candidates.

Ray and SBB have said she's "unelectable", and when they said that, they weren't referring to anything but her ability to win the nomination and the election. They were talking about her weakness and vulnerabilities as a candidate.

If they sincerely believe that, which they may or may not, they won't mind waiting until she's actually declared her candidacy to begin the bet, because whatever weaknesses and vulnerabilities she has now wouldn't have magically disappeared by then. If they still want to make that bet at that point, I'll be here. And if they don't, I'll understand fully why they'd be reluctant to, given the clown show nature of her prospective opposition candidates. If I were in their shoes, I'd be just as wary of that sort of a wager as they clearly are.

But once again, once she declares, if at any point she then withdraws for any reason while trailing in the RCP average, I'll forfeit the money.

To the question that raised it--was Nixon an anti-modernist like the recent crop of Republican nominees--though I think the answer is no.

I would have voted for Humphrey, but I don't think Nixon or Ford or Bush 1 or even in 2000 Bush 2 were out of the norm of American politics.

I'd agree with that, but it hardly means that Nixon was remotely "to the left" of today's Democratic mainstream, especially if you adjust for the changing political context. It's as if you're treating an OPS of .650 in 1996 as the same as an OPS of .650 in 2014. Class based affirmative action wasn't even on the table in 1970, and the racism in hiring was far more blatant and in need of direct remediation than it is today.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention Nixon's opening up relations with China, which is another example of a half truth about his so-called "liberalism." Here's a politician who built much of his entire early career on red baiting Democrats about "losing" China, getting them to the point where the slightest suggestion of retreat from the hard line against Communism was enough to send them cowering under their blankets and blabbering about phony "missile gaps".

And then once he and his redbaiting cohorts had accomplished their emasculation of the Democrats, he oh-so-bravely reaches out to China, knowing full well that if any Democratic president had ever attempted such a move, he would've been all over him like Darrel Issa over Benghazi. It was a classic heads he wins, tails you lose move, and I'll admit you have to tip your hat to its political genius. But that's no more a sign of his "liberalism" than his refusal to put up a fight against majorities that could override his veto.

My mother was 100% at the age of 67, and then had multiple strokes at the age of 68 and never recovered from them. If Hillary's 100% at some point in 2015, she'll declare her candidacy and we can make that month's OTP thread into Las Vegas central.

Conservatives like William F. Buckley and his crew, not mention those to the right of Buckley, certainly didn't consider Nixon one of them. Whatever his temperament or motivation, he did go to China. That is a fact, and it was a big step, and it was recognized as such at the time.

Nixon instigated price and wage freezes. What conservative would do that? He consolidated and expanded federal social programs. What conservative would do that? Nixon expanded welfare. He reduced American military involvement in Vietnam. On the ground troops went from 450K to 45K in his first term. What right-wing anti-communist wanted that (except to eschew blame for total failure). No, he wasn't McGovern or Gene McCarthy when it came to Vietnam, or LBJ or Ted Kennedy when it came to domestic programs, but he was definitely not following the traditional anti-government agenda of the political right.

Nevertheless, I would say, as a matter of first impression, that if the government is justified in shooting a citizen making war against this country, it is justified in droning that person. Moreover, we don't have to actually wait for him to start firing either. He could give himself up, you know.

If the executive's justification for droning Americans is that the executive's "internal deliberations" constitute "due process," how is it relevant that the citizen is "making war"? If there is time for deliberations, where is the imminent threat? When did due process become a requirement of the commander in chief when waging war?

I'm having some difficulty understanding what you're getting at. How are you interpreting what you quote there in order to base that response of yours. Maybe you could be a little more specific. A factual scenario might help. First: Is there a war? Second: Is the American citizen engaged in making war against America? Why would being a citizen make a difference during an actual war? Why should we wait for that person to actually try to kill somebody (soldiers/civilians)? Why does being a citizen give him a handicap of sorts (if its a war situation)? If someone engages in war against this country, does that obligate us to fight against him with an arm behind our back--when we wouldn't do the same for an alien combatant?

Conservatives like William F. Buckley and his crew, not mention those to the right of Buckley, certainly didn't consider Nixon one of them.

Buckley did consider Nixon to be a fellow anti-Communist, which trumped their disagreements on domestic issues if the alternative was Humphrey or McGovern. Not so much if the choice was Goldwater or Reagan.

Being an American citizen doesn't give anyone special protection if they go abroad to wage war against the United States. Americans who fought for the Axis were fair game, and were actually subject to less protection than non-U.S. citizens, since they could also be tried for treason for actions that other Axis soldiers could engage in under the laws of war.

How are you interpreting what you quote there in order to base that response of yours.

The Administration's apparent reliance on due process seems like a non starter.

The memo supposedly justifies the droning of an American citizen by arguing that his right to due process was protected by deliberations whether to kill him occurring within the executive branch. Does that justification (relying on the assertion of de facto upholding due process) imply that said American citizen target is not (necessarily) being deemed by the Administration to be an "enemy combatant", but rather a mere criminal? If one is deemed entitled to due process, as the memo is said to imply, can it be inferred that one is not deemed to be "waging war"?

Being an American citizen doesn't give anyone special protection if they go abroad to wage war against the United States.

What if the location "abroad" is not a recognized war zone, e.g. Yemen?

What if an American citizen is killed by the CIA rather than a military branch of the US armed forces, and in a location that is not a battlefield or recognized war zone like Afghanistan? Is that "waging war"?

In both cases, the enthusiasm may wax or wane, depending on the circumstances. But in both cases, when push comes to shove, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" takes over as the primary operating principle. Buckley may have ragged on Eisenhower or Nixon on occasion, but he never endorsed any third party candidates in November.

Americans who fought for the Axis were fair game, and were actually subject to less protection than non-U.S. citizens, since they could also be tried for treason for actions that other Axis soldiers could engage in under the laws of war.

If they had been apprehended on the battlefield? No. They would have been summarily executed, I suspect, even if they had thrown down arms. Would a Soviet spy operating in Yemen during the Cold War have been arrested and brought back to the US for trial?

What if the location "abroad" is not a recognized war zone, e.g. Yemen?

This is a false assumption. The fact of the matter is that since we rolled out this 'global war on terror' thing both Presidents and their entire administrations have considered the entire globe to be in theater. That's the meaning of "global." It's fair game to argue that we shouldn't be engaged in a boundless, global "war on terror" that has no definitive end marker and assumes the entire Earth as the "war zone," but it's false to assume that argument as a given and then prosecute claims against the admin(s) for violating our assumed rules of engagement.

Barack Obama's administration treats the "war on terror" in the same terms, as a theater at least, as did the previous admin. The WOT is "global" and thus the entire globe is a "war zone." You can't handwave that assumption away when asking the hard questions about when and where al-Q cells, including those with American citizens operating within them, can be attacked.

Ray and SBB have said she's "unelectable", and when they said that, they weren't referring to anything but her ability to win the nomination and the election. They were talking about her weakness and vulnerabilities as a candidate.

Though you people vastly overrate her appeal to voters, I never said any such thing.

All the stars were aligned for her to win in 2008, and she didn't come close. When she made her appeal to actual Democratic primary voters, they didn't really like her that much. She obviously doesn't have much appeal to Republicans.

I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to stress and bold "as a candidate." What other "weaknesses" would we be talking about? You act as if she's never been a candidate before. Is this another fantasy world thing wherein, much like her husband wasn't "really" impeached, she didn't "really" run in 2008?

Barack Obama's administration treats the "war on terror" in the same terms, as a theater at least, as did the previous admin. The WOT is "global" and thus the entire globe is a "war zone." You can't handwave that assumption away when asking the hard questions about when and where al-Q cells, including those with American citizens operating within them, can be attacked.

In other words, Obama has continued the illegal executive power grab started by George W. Bush. Hardly an endorsement.

The memo supposedly justifies the droning of an American citizen by arguing that his right to due process was protected by deliberations whether to kill him occurring within the executive branch.

In other words, Obama has continued the illegal executive power grab started by George W. Bush. Hardly an endorsement.

How is it an illegal executive power grab? Does the AUMF not give the executive broad powers to execute a "global war?" Has the AUMF been rescinded while I wasn't watching? Again, you can argue that it's a terrible idea, and I'll likely agree with you on the merits. But I don't see how you can argue an action that is authorized by an act of Congress to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." is an "illegal power grab."

This is one of those things where you let your moral outrage override basic reasoning skills.

If they had been apprehended on the battlefield? No. They would have been summarily executed, I suspect, even if they had thrown down arms. Would a Soviet spy operating in Yemen during the Cold War have been arrested and brought back to the US for trial?

Yes, if in the middle of a battle an American in opposition of his country dies there is nothing illegal being committed by the American forces and yes if he was to surrender or be captured he might very well get killed. But doing that wouldn't have been legal. How is a Soviet spy in Yemen relevant?

This is a false assumption. The fact of the matter is that since we rolled out this 'global war on terror' thing both Presidents and their entire administrations have considered the entire globe to be in theater. That's the meaning of "global." It's fair game to argue that we shouldn't be engaged in a boundless, global "war on terror" that has no definitive end marker and assumes the entire Earth as the "war zone," but it's false to assume that argument as a given and then prosecute claims against the admin(s) for violating our assumed rules of engagement.

Barack Obama's administration treats the "war on terror" in the same terms, as a theater at least, as did the previous admin. The WOT is "global" and thus the entire globe is a "war zone." You can't handwave that assumption away when asking the hard questions about when and where al-Q cells, including those with American citizens operating within them, can be attacked.

If the President believes the country is at war and that the whole globe is the theater then he needs to go before Congress and get permission to continue waging war. His waging war powers are limited and 13 years out the link to 9/11 is tenous at best.

All the stars were aligned for her to win in 2008, and she didn't come close.

I think that is an oversell. She came pretty close to winning the Democratic nomination. She won 1900 delegates, only 200 short of the required amount. Mostly I think she had bad strategy. Obama spent most of his energy and resources trying to win the caucuses. Clinton was focused on Super Tuesday. She won most of the big states and pretty much all of the states that the democrats win to get elected president (except for Illinois, Obama's home state) Obama did have a lot more fervor in support which explains a lot of the caucus wins.

I think she would have beat McCain, just because the electorate was tired of Bush.

Yes, if in the middle of a battle an American in opposition of his country dies there is nothing illegal being committed by the American forces and yes if he was to surrender or be captured he might very well get killed. But doing that wouldn't have been legal.

But doing it wouldn't have been anything notable, either. Traitors found on the battlefield are, with some degree of historical fidelity, dealt with on the battlefield. Legal or not, there's nothing notably new or unique about a citizen fighting against his country on the battle field being killed there, either in battle or after the fact.

How is a Soviet spy in Yemen relevant?

Because you have to merge the "on the battle field" metaphor of previous wars with the "global theater" metaphor of the Cold War. Again, you may not like that. You may strongly disagree with the rationale by which the "global war on terror" is bracketed. But if you're going to critique the actual actions of participants in that "global war" you must acknowledge that the brackets that they are operating within, not demand that the question be resolved only by reference to your personal, much more constrained brackets.

In the "global war on terror" the entire globe is the battlefield (not unlike the Cold War.)
Yemen is part of the globe.
If al-Q is operating in Yemen, the still standing 2001 AUMF gives the US POTUS the right to execute attacks on those operations.
If an American citizen is operating with al-Q in Yemen, their is little reason to think he will be given special dispensation.

If the President believes the country is at war and that the whole globe is the theater then he needs to go before Congress and get permission to continue waging war. His waging war powers are limited and 13 years out the link to 9/11 is tenous at best.

Morally? Perhaps. I probably agree with you. Legally? I don't see anything stating that the 2001 AUMF has expired, and that AUMF is broad.

How is it an illegal executive power grab? Does the AUMF not give the executive broad powers to execute a "global war?" Has the AUMF been rescinded while I wasn't watching? Again, you can argue that it's a terrible idea, and I'll likely agree with you on the merits. But I don't see how you can argue an action that is authorized by an act of Congress to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." is an "illegal power grab."

Because Congress doesn't have the authority to grant the executive the power to execute American citizens without trial, anymore than the German parliament had the authority to hand over legislative and judicial powers to Hitler. The law is being applied unconstitutionally; therefore, it is an illegal power grab by the executive.

Under your interpretation, the AUMF justifies the President flying drones over Jersey City and shooting Americans he himself deems affiliated with a terrorist organization. (If the WOT is "global," it encompasses Jersey City.) This is, self-evidently, unconstitutional. No American can be deprived of his property, much less his life, without due process of law -- an axiomatic principle of constitutional law.

This is how you reason, and show "reasoning skills," as opposed to merely shilling for a President you like.

You (not you, Swoboda, you SBB, Ray, Clapper, etc. plural) can bang on the left all you want for their whims, but their whims wanted the first black president ever more than the first woman president ever in 2008. And their whims this time, if applicable, are going to want the first woman president ever more than anyone else. Rage against the impetus all you want, but to deny that the impetus exists is to deny reality.

Ray and SBB have said she's "unelectable", and when they said that, they weren't referring to anything but her ability to win the nomination and the election. They were talking about her weakness and vulnerabilities as a candidate.

Though you people vastly overrate her appeal to voters, I never said any such thing.

So why do you then go on to write this?

All the stars were aligned for her to win in 2008, and she didn't come close. When she made her appeal to actual Democratic primary voters, they didn't really like her that much. She obviously doesn't have much appeal to Republicans.

I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to stress and bold "as a candidate." What other "weaknesses" would we be talking about? You act as if she's never been a candidate before.

I'm just quoting your own words. There's nothing there that should make you afraid to bet against her winning once she's declared her candidacy. All I'm waiting for is for her to declare herself, and once she's done that, then we can bet on her electability or non-electability. That is, if you really believe what you just wrote above, which I'm strongly beginning to doubt.

Is this another fantasy world thing wherein, much like her husband wasn't "really" impeached, she didn't "really" run in 2008?

Her husband was impeached and not convicted, which is irrelevant to any future campaign of Hillary's.

Hillary ran in 2008 and lost to a relative unknown. You project from this to 2016, and I don't. Once she declares her candidacy, we'll see if you're willing to back your projections with your wallet. I'm more than willing to back mine at that point.

Under your interpretation, the AUMF justifies the President flying drones over Jersey City and shooting Americans he himself deems affiliated with a terrorist organization. (If the WOT is "global," it encompasses Jersey City.)

Yes. Under the current AUMF the POTUS has that power. If you deem that power unconstitutional, then it is up to you to agitate and get the courts to find in agreement with you. As of today, no court has called into question this claim, and thus unchallenged, it is constitutional. "Unconstitutional" doesn't mean "it makes SugarBear kind of sad on the inside."

This is how you reason, and show "reasoning skills," as opposed to merely shilling for a President you like.

I'm not shilling for anyone. I'm well on record as being against the drone wars in general, not merely in the case of this one action in Yemen. What I'm not doing is allowing my personal moral reproach about actions to color my reading of the facts of the world. I have that ability. You quite clearly do not.

If an American citizen is operating with al-Q in Yemen, their is little reason to think he will be given special dispensation.

If Obama is so certain the American is "operating with al-Q," he can present his evidence to someone other than himself. Neither he, nor any President, should be trusted with the power to decide these things themselves -- and of course they aren't so trusted in the Constitutional framework.